Page 131 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA v. VAINGUINIM VALLEY RESORT 49
also not indicated the date on which the Vasant Vihar office forwarded the order
to the appellant nor the appellant has indicated when this order was received by
it at the new address. These facts were required to be stated by the appellant to
make out a case for condoning the delay, but they have not been stated.
7. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the averments made in the ap-
plication that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the
appeal within the stipulated time. The delay application is, accordingly, rejected.
8. As the delay condonation application has been rejected, the appeal
stands dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 49 (Tri. - Mumbai)

IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) and Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA
Versus
VAINGUINIM VALLEY RESORT
Final Order No. A/85428/2019-WZB, dated 5-3-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/86171/2015 and Cross Objection No. ST/CO/91118/2015
Business Support Services - Joint Venture Agreement - Services pro-
vided under Joint Venture Agreement during period prior to 1-7-2012 not taxa-
ble when there is no relationship of service provider or service receiver be-
tween the parties to such agreement and no consideration received by either
side for rendition of such service rather profit/loss arising out of such business
shared by both parties - Sections 65(104c) and 65(105)(zzzq) of Finance Act,
1994. [paras 2, 3]
Appeal dismissed
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 109/03/2009-S.T., dated 23-2-2009 .............................................................. [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.K. Sarangi, Additional Commissioner (AR),
for the Appellant.
Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
[Order per : S.K. Mohanty, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides and exam-
ined the case records.
2. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, dated 30-12-2014
passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Panaji,
Goa. The impugned order was assailed on the ground that services provided by
the respondent to M/s. Brittos Amusements Pvt. Ltd. (BAPL), pursuant to the
joint venture agreement with M/s. Goa Golf Club Pvt. Ltd., should fall under the
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  131